|
You know, if ASSP could modify the subject line based on
DNSBL, it would be the perfect fix.
Not bouncing, but letting the user know it's most probably
spam.
They can then do what they want with it, AT their local
mailbox.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] ASSP Not that I want to get into the debate to the current level, but for the sake of others as well as yourself, it needs to be made clear that SpamCop currently has very serious issues with false positives for mail servers belonging to very large ISP's, including AOL. A couple of weeks ago they were regularly listing many of AOL's outbound servers, and when I approached one of their "Deputies" about the issue, the response was, "they are sending out spam and we're a very aggressive list." I've noticed in the past month that things have gotten very bad with SpamCop in many regards, and I believe this is due to zombie spammers now relaying their mail through the ISP's mail server as opposed to directly to your server through the exploited machine. This does two things, first, it helps protect the spam from being blocked since it's not wise to be blacklisting AOL's or any other major ISP's mail servers, and second, they do this to cause collateral damage to the spam traps by making them less reliable. They are winning in both regards. SpamCop is a very useful test, however their false positive rate, and the type of thing that they false positive on nowadays leaves something to be desired. I've dropped my weighting on this test by 33% in the past few weeks, and it's still causing me some sporadic problems. Matt Travis Rabe wrote: John, we have discussed this before and apparently we need to yet again. Since you are not *EMAIL OVERLOAD* people can apply policies any way they see fit. What you think people should "never do" are in fact great policies on other networks. At our offices, blacklists like Spam Cop have yielded me three false positives in the past 5 months. Let's calcualte that....... Roughly 1500 emails per day per office = 7500 emails per day 5 months times (lets say 30 days = 150 days 7500 * 150 = 1,250,000 total e-mails Total Fales Positives = 3 3/1,250,000 = .0000024 = PRETTY DAMN GOOD! If I were running an ISP, sure my approach may be different, but I'm not. For offices that strictly prohibit anything but work related mail blocking on a relaible list like SpamCop works great! Please rememeber the way you run your e-mail servers isn't the way we shoudl all run ours. Thanks Travis-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff (Lists) Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP -- ===================================================== MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ ===================================================== |
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP William Van Hefner
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP Rick Klinge
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP Matt Robertson
- Re: [IMail Forum] ASSP Gerald
- Re: [IMail Forum] ASSP R. Scott Perry
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP William Van Hefner
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP Travis Rabe
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP isp-lists @ beachcomp.com
- Re: [IMail Forum] ASSP Matt
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP isp-lists @ beachcomp.com
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP Travis Rabe
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP William Van Hefner
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP Kevin Bilbee
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP Travis Rabe
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP Kevin Bilbee
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP William Van Hefner
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP Desale
- RE: [IMail Forum] ASSP Rick Klinge
- Re: [IMail Forum] ASSP David Maggard
